The Doctor Reborn: Critical Responses to Russell T Davies’ Return to Doctor Who
Introduction
The return of Russell T Davies as showrunner of Doctor Who in 2023 represented one of the most significant developments in the programme’s modern history. Davies had originally revived Doctor Who for the BBC in 2005, transforming a programme that had been absent from British television for sixteen years into an internationally recognised popular-culture phenomenon. His departure in 2010 was followed by the increasingly ambitious eras of Steven Moffat and Chris Chibnall, but by the conclusion of Jodie Whittaker’s tenure in 2022, the programme faced questions concerning its declining conventional television audience, its changing cultural position and its ability to attract new generations of viewers.
Davies’ second tenure consequently arrived under very different circumstances from his first. Rather than simply returning to the BBC’s established production model, Doctor Who entered a new international partnership with Disney, which became the programme’s exclusive international streaming home outside the United Kingdom and Ireland.[1] David Tennant and Catherine Tate returned for the programme’s sixtieth-anniversary celebrations before Ncuti Gatwa assumed the role of the Fifteenth Doctor. The resulting series therefore represented simultaneously a continuation, a celebration of the programme’s past and an attempt to establish a new international future.
The reception to this return has been notably divided. Critics have frequently praised Gatwa’s performance, Davies’ renewed energy, the programme’s visual ambition and its willingness to engage with questions of identity, emotion and representation. Conversely, criticism has focused on inconsistent plotting, excessive exposition, the handling of long-running mysteries and the sometimes unsatisfactory relationship between narrative ambition and narrative coherence. The first season’s finale, Empire of Death, particularly exposed these divisions: while some critics regarded it as an ambitious and emotionally satisfying conclusion, others considered its treatment of Ruby Sunday’s parentage and Sutekh’s defeat fundamentally anticlimactic.[2]
This essay argues that Davies’ return should be understood neither as an unqualified revival nor as the failure sometimes suggested by its critics. Rather, the new era demonstrates a fundamental tension within contemporary Doctor Who: the programme is attempting simultaneously to preserve its identity as a British public-service television institution, expand into an international streaming franchise and reinvent itself for a new generation. Its greatest strengths—its emotional openness, Gatwa’s performance and its willingness to experiment—are also accompanied by weaknesses arising from the difficulty of reconciling these competing ambitions.
1. From revival to re-revival
The historical importance of Davies’ return cannot be separated from the significance of his first tenure.
The 2005 revival succeeded partly because Davies understood that Doctor Who did not need to become a conventional science-fiction drama in order to appeal to contemporary audiences. Instead, he combined science fiction, comedy, horror, melodrama and domestic storytelling. The Doctor was simultaneously an extraordinary alien and an emotionally accessible character. Companions such as Rose Tyler, Martha Jones and Donna Noble were not simply functional assistants; their relationships with families, friends and ordinary human life were central to the programme’s dramatic structure.
Davies returned to a programme that had changed substantially since 2010. His decision to begin the new era with three anniversary specials featuring David Tennant and Catherine Tate was therefore significant. The Star Beast, Wild Blue Yonder and The Giggle functioned as a bridge between the programme’s past and its future. Tennant’s return provided an immediate connection to the most commercially successful period of the revived series, while the introduction of Gatwa established the next stage.
The strategy was effective in generating attention. It was also inherently risky.
A programme attempting to regenerate itself while foregrounding its past can easily become dependent upon nostalgia. The presence of Tennant, Tate and returning characters such as Mel Bush provided an immediate emotional connection for established viewers, but also risked suggesting that Doctor Who‘s most important asset was its history rather than its capacity for invention.
Davies’ approach consequently represented a balancing act: the anniversary had to reward long-term viewers without allowing nostalgia to determine the identity of the new series.
2. Ncuti Gatwa and the reconstruction of the Doctor
The strongest area of critical consensus surrounding Davies’ return has been Ncuti Gatwa’s performance.
Gatwa’s Doctor is markedly different from Tennant’s, Smith’s, Capaldi’s and Whittaker’s interpretations. Rather than reproducing the characteristics of an earlier incarnation, Gatwa emphasises emotional openness, theatricality and joy. The result is a Doctor whose vulnerability is unusually visible.
Contemporary reviews were frequently enthusiastic. The Guardian described Gatwa as a “dazzling, all-singing, all-dancing delight”, arguing that his performance brought a new energy to the programme.[3] The Independent similarly described him as the best aspect of the opening episodes, praising his charisma despite reservations about some of Davies’ storytelling.[4]
This distinction between actor and material is important. Much of the criticism of the 2024 season was directed not towards Gatwa himself but towards the stories surrounding him. Indeed, the negative response to individual episodes frequently strengthened rather than weakened the argument that Gatwa was an excellent Doctor.
This suggests that Davies successfully solved one of the central problems associated with regeneration: how to make the new Doctor feel genuinely new.
Gatwa’s interpretation also reflects a broader change in the programme’s representation of emotion. Davies has stated that he wanted the Doctor to reflect a contemporary cultural willingness among young people to express their emotions more openly.[5] Consequently, crying, fear, affection and joy are not presented as contradictions of heroic behaviour. The Doctor can be emotionally vulnerable without becoming ineffective.
This is an important development in the character’s history.
Earlier Doctors could certainly be compassionate, but emotional restraint was often associated with authority. Gatwa’s Doctor instead demonstrates that emotional openness can itself constitute a form of strength. His tears do not prevent him from confronting danger; they establish why confronting danger matters.
3. Representation and the politics of the new Doctor Who
The casting of Gatwa also carries significance beyond performance. As the first Black actor to lead the revived series, his appointment represents a significant moment in the programme’s history.
However, the importance of representation should not be reduced to demographic symbolism. Doctor Who has always been a programme concerned with outsiders. The Doctor is literally an alien who repeatedly enters societies and encounters individuals who are excluded, marginalised or misunderstood.
The expansion of representation in the Davies era can therefore be interpreted as consistent with the programme’s long-standing thematic identity.
The character of Rose Noble, played by transgender actor Yasmin Finney, is another example. Rose’s identity is not constructed as a problem to be solved; instead, the narrative incorporates it into the wider story of family, identity and belonging. This represents a continuation of Davies’ interest in LGBTQ+ representation, which was already evident during his first tenure.
Supporters consequently argue that the new Doctor Who is not abandoning its traditional identity but extending it.
Nevertheless, this aspect of the programme has contributed to polarised reactions. Some viewers have criticised what they regard as overly explicit political messaging. This criticism should be distinguished from objections to representation itself. It is possible to argue that a particular story handles a political theme clumsily without arguing that diverse characters should not exist.
The question for Davies is therefore not whether Doctor Who should address social issues. Historically, it has always done so. The more important question is whether those issues emerge organically from character and narrative.
When they do, the programme can be extremely effective. When the message becomes more prominent than the story, the drama can appear didactic.
4. The Disney partnership and the globalisation of Doctor Who
Perhaps the greatest structural change introduced by Davies’ return is the BBC’s partnership with Disney.
Announced in 2022, the agreement established Disney+ as the international home of new Doctor Who episodes outside the United Kingdom and Ireland, while the BBC retained its domestic role.[6] Disney described the 2024 season as the first to launch simultaneously worldwide on Disney+ outside the UK, while the BBC continued to premiere the series domestically.[7]
This represented a fundamental change in the programme’s industrial identity.
The original revival was successful internationally, but it remained fundamentally a BBC production designed around British television. The new model explicitly conceptualises Doctor Who as a global franchise.
There are clear advantages.
Disney’s resources contributed to a more ambitious visual presentation. The new episodes could operate on a larger scale, while international distribution made the programme substantially easier to access outside Britain.
Davies himself has spoken positively about the possibilities created by the partnership and about his ambition for the programme’s future.[8]
Yet globalisation creates a tension.
Doctor Who has historically derived part of its identity from being recognisably British. Its humour, settings and relationship with the BBC are embedded in its cultural identity. The more aggressively it is developed as a global franchise, the greater the risk that this distinctiveness could be diluted.
The solution appears not to be rejecting internationalisation but managing it carefully.
The new Doctor Who needs to become internationally accessible without becoming culturally anonymous.
5. The problem of accessibility
The opening of the 2024 season illustrates another consequence of the programme’s new circumstances.
Space Babies introduces viewers to Gatwa’s Doctor and Ruby Sunday while simultaneously attempting to establish the rules and mythology of the programme for potential newcomers. The Guardian praised the ambition and Gatwa’s performance but criticised the episode for becoming weighed down by exposition.[9]
This criticism is revealing.
Established fans do not need lengthy explanations of the TARDIS, regeneration or the Doctor’s basic role. International viewers encountering the programme for the first time may need precisely that information.
Davies consequently has to write for two audiences simultaneously.
The first is the established fanbase, which has accumulated decades of knowledge and expectations.
The second is the potential new audience attracted through Disney+, for whom Doctor Who may be entirely unfamiliar.
This is one of the defining challenges of the new era.
A successful franchise must be accessible without becoming simplistic. It must reward existing viewers without requiring years of prior knowledge.
At its best, the 2024 season achieves this. At its weakest, the mechanisms of accessibility become visible and interrupt the storytelling.
6. The problem of mystery-box storytelling
The most significant criticism of the 2024 season concerned its use of mystery.
Ruby Sunday’s parentage became a central narrative question from The Church on Ruby Road. Her mysterious abandonment outside a church, the recurring image of her mother and the strange supernatural events surrounding her encouraged viewers to assume that the answer would have major consequences for the mythology of Doctor Who.
The eventual revelation was deliberately different.
Ruby’s mother was Louise Miller, an ordinary woman who had abandoned her daughter as a frightened teenager.
There is an intellectually interesting argument behind this decision.
The story challenges the assumption that significance requires extraordinary ancestry. Ruby does not matter because she is secretly a Time Lord, a supernatural entity or the descendant of a famous character. She matters because she is a person.
The narrative therefore reverses the conventional logic of franchise mythology.
However, this thematic ambition created a problem of expectation.
The more strongly a programme implies that a mystery is cosmically important, the more difficult it becomes to provide a satisfying ordinary answer.
The Independent regarded the resolution as a major anticlimax, arguing that viewers had been encouraged to expect a far more significant revelation.[10] Other critics were more sympathetic to Davies’ intention, but the division itself demonstrates the problem.
The issue was not necessarily that Ruby’s mother was ordinary.
The issue was that the storytelling had encouraged the audience to believe she was extraordinary.
This represents one of the fundamental dangers of “mystery-box” storytelling: the audience becomes more invested in solving the mystery than in experiencing the story.
Once that happens, almost any answer risks disappointing.
7. Sutekh and the finale
The same problem affected Empire of Death.
The return of Sutekh represented a bold piece of continuity. Originally introduced during the Tom Baker era, Sutekh was transformed into a universe-threatening antagonist whose connection to the TARDIS retrospectively extended across the Doctor’s history.
The scale of the idea was unmistakably ambitious.
Yet the finale received a mixed response.
The Guardian noted that the episode reached its major conclusion relatively early and subsequently moved into an extended emotional resolution.[11] The Independent was considerably more negative, describing the finale as a “big let-down” and criticising both the Ruby mystery and the logic of Sutekh’s defeat.[12]
The criticism illustrates a recurring characteristic of Davies’ writing.
His stories frequently prioritise emotional and thematic coherence over strict scientific or mechanical logic. The Doctor’s solution may not withstand detailed scrutiny, but the emotional meaning of the solution is intended to carry the scene.
This is not inherently a flaw.
Doctor Who has never operated according to the standards of hard science fiction. Its mythology has always included absurd technologies, paradoxes and deliberately fantastical concepts.
The difficulty arises when a story presents itself as a mystery requiring a precise solution.
Once the audience is encouraged to scrutinise the mechanics of a mystery, an emotionally satisfying conclusion may no longer be sufficient.
The finale therefore becomes an example of both Davies’ greatest strength and one of his most persistent weaknesses: he is often more interested in what a story means than in whether every component of its mechanism functions perfectly.
8. The importance of experimentation
Despite these weaknesses, the 2024 season demonstrated considerable creative ambition.
Episodes including The Devil’s Chord, Boom, 73 Yards and Dot and Bubble differed substantially in tone and structure.
This variety is essential to Doctor Who.
A programme based around time travel and regeneration can potentially tell almost any kind of story. Its strongest eras have therefore tended to contain experimentation alongside more conventional adventures.
The Devil’s Chord, for example, combines historical fiction, fantasy and musical storytelling. Boom reduces the scale and places the Doctor in a more contained situation. 73 Yards moves towards psychological horror and mystery, while Dot and Bubble uses science fiction to address prejudice and social exclusion.
The significance of this variety is that Davies has not attempted simply to recreate his 2005 formula.
The new series resembles his earlier work emotionally, but it is not identical structurally.
This is particularly important given the danger of nostalgia discussed earlier. If the second Davies era consisted entirely of repetitions of his first, the programme would ultimately become retrospective rather than creative.
Instead, the strongest episodes demonstrate that the new Doctor Who can still experiment.
9. Ratings, streaming and the changing definition of success
Assessing the success of the new era is complicated by changes in how television is consumed.
Traditional overnight ratings are increasingly inadequate as a measure of a programme distributed simultaneously through broadcast television, catch-up services and international streaming.
Nevertheless, the conventional ratings figures generated concern. Reporting in The Times, for example, noted that Gatwa’s opening episodes attracted smaller overnight audiences than Whittaker’s debut, while also highlighting stronger performance when delayed viewing and iPlayer consumption were taken into account.[13]
This presents an important methodological problem.
If Doctor Who is now deliberately designed as a global streaming franchise, judging it exclusively through overnight BBC television ratings misunderstands its industrial model.
At the same time, streaming success cannot simply be assumed.
The BBC and Disney require evidence that the programme is reaching and retaining audiences. A global franchise may generate enormous cultural value, but it also needs sustainable viewership.
Consequently, the new Doctor Who occupies an unusual position. It remains a BBC institution while increasingly functioning according to the economics and expectations of international streaming.
Its success must therefore be measured differently from that of earlier eras.
10. A new emotional model for the Doctor
Perhaps the most significant long-term contribution of the Gatwa era is its emotional philosophy.
Gatwa’s Doctor is allowed to experience joy and vulnerability without apology.
This is particularly significant because the programme’s cultural context has changed since 2005. Davies’ first Doctor, Christopher Eccleston, was defined partly by trauma and anger. David Tennant combined exuberance with enormous emotional repression. Matt Smith’s Doctor often concealed seriousness behind childish behaviour. Peter Capaldi emphasised the alien nature of the character.
Gatwa’s Doctor is different.
He is more openly affectionate.
The distinction is not merely stylistic. It changes the relationship between heroism and emotion.
The new Doctor demonstrates that compassion is not a weakness and that emotional expression does not undermine authority.
Davies has explicitly connected this approach with contemporary attitudes towards emotional health among younger people.[14]
This makes the new Doctor culturally significant beyond the question of representation.
The character becomes a model of masculinity and heroism in which sensitivity and strength coexist.
That is a meaningful evolution of a character who has always been capable of reinvention.
Conclusion
Russell T Davies’ return to Doctor Who should ultimately be understood as an ambitious attempt to solve several problems simultaneously.
The programme needed to reconnect with its historical audience, attract new viewers, establish a new Doctor, expand internationally and remain recognisably British. The BBC-Disney partnership provided unprecedented opportunities for global distribution and production, while Davies’ return provided the creative continuity necessary to make the transition appear coherent.
The results have been mixed but significant.
The strongest element is undoubtedly Ncuti Gatwa. His Doctor possesses an immediate identity and avoids the common problem of appearing to be an imitation of his predecessors. Critics have consistently identified Gatwa’s charisma and emotional range as among the programme’s greatest assets.[15]
The programme has also benefited from renewed creative confidence. Its willingness to experiment with musical fantasy, psychological horror, political science fiction and intimate character drama demonstrates that Doctor Who remains capable of reinvention.
The weaknesses are primarily located in narrative construction.
Davies can overstate mysteries, overload episodes with exposition and construct finales whose emotional logic is stronger than their mechanical logic. The resolution of Ruby Sunday’s parentage is perhaps the clearest example: thematically, the ordinariness of her mother is defensible and even interesting; structurally, however, the preceding episodes created expectations that the eventual revelation struggled to satisfy.
This contradiction is central to the second Davies era.
The programme wants to be both intimate and epic; British and global; nostalgic and innovative; accessible and complex.
These objectives do not always sit comfortably together.
Yet this tension should not necessarily be interpreted as evidence of failure.
Doctor Who has always survived through regeneration. Every new Doctor changes the programme, and every change produces resistance. The important question is whether the programme retains the capacity to surprise.
Davies’ second era does.
It is not a flawless revival. Nor is it the straightforward return to the “golden age” that some nostalgic viewers anticipated. Instead, it is a new phase of Doctor Who attempting to negotiate a radically different television landscape.
Its ultimate success will depend on whether future seasons can retain Gatwa’s extraordinary energy while providing stories with greater narrative discipline.
If they can, Davies’ return may eventually be remembered not simply as a nostalgic revival but as another significant transformation of the programme.
The most appropriate judgement, therefore, is neither that Russell T Davies has “saved” Doctor Who nor that he has damaged it.
He has regenerated it.
And, as with every regeneration, the result is recognisably the same character—but undeniably different.
Footnotes
1. Doctor Who, “BBC and Disney Branded Television Join Forces on Doctor Who,” 25 October 2022. The agreement established Disney+ as the international home of new Doctor Who episodes outside the UK and Ireland.
2. See Ed Power, “Doctor Who episode 8 review: After all the hype and hoopla, this finale is a big let-down,” The Independent, 22 June 2024; see also The Guardian, “Doctor Who: Empire of Death – season one finale recap,” 22 June 2024.
3. The Guardian, “Doctor Who first look review – Ncuti Gatwa will make this show far more fun than it’s been for years,” 6 May 2024.
4. Ed Power, “Doctor Who: Space Babies and The Devil’s Chord review – Ncuti Gatwa is the perfect Doctor with megawatt charm,” The Independent, 11 May 2024.
5. Russell T Davies, quoted in Ed Power, “Doctor Who episode 8 review,” The Independent, 22 June 2024.
6. Doctor Who, “BBC and Disney Branded Television Join Forces on Doctor Who,” 25 October 2022.
7. The Walt Disney Company, “‘Doctor Who’ Debuts May 10 with Multiple Episodes,” 15 March 2024.
8. Doctor Who, “Q&A with showrunner Russell T Davies,” 9 May 2024. The interview discusses Davies’ return, his ambitions for the programme and his approach to the new Doctor.
9. The Guardian, “Doctor Who first look review,” 6 May 2024.
10. Power, “Doctor Who episode 8 review,” The Independent, 22 June 2024.
11. The Guardian, “Doctor Who: Empire of Death – season one finale recap,” 22 June 2024.
12. Power, “Doctor Who episode 8 review,” The Independent, 22 June 2024.
13. The Times, “Will Disney renew Doctor Who deal after ‘underwhelming’ ratings?” 2024. The article discusses the difference between overnight figures and broader viewing through iPlayer and streaming.
14. Power, “Doctor Who episode 8 review,” The Independent, 22 June 2024.
15. Power, “Doctor Who: Space Babies and The Devil’s Chord review,” The Independent, 11 May 2024; The Guardian, “Doctor Who first look review,” 6 May 2024.
Bibliography
Doctor Who. “BBC and Disney Branded Television Join Forces on Doctor Who.” 25 October 2022. Official Doctor Who website.
Doctor Who. “Q&A with Showrunner Russell T Davies.” 9 May 2024. Official Doctor Who website.
Doctor Who: Empire of Death. Written by Russell T Davies. BBC/Disney+, 2024.
Doctor Who: The Church on Ruby Road. Written by Russell T Davies. BBC, 2023.
Power, Ed. “Doctor Who: Space Babies and The Devil’s Chord Review – Ncuti Gatwa Is the Perfect Doctor with Megawatt Charm.” The Independent, 11 May 2024.
Power, Ed. “Doctor Who Episode 8 Review: After All the Hype and Hoopla, This Finale Is a Big Let-Down.” The Independent, 22 June 2024.
The Guardian. “Doctor Who First Look Review – Ncuti Gatwa Will Make This Show Far More Fun Than It’s Been for Years.” 6 May 2024.
The Guardian. “Doctor Who: Empire of Death – Season One Finale Recap.” 22 June 2024.
The Walt Disney Company. “‘Doctor Who’ Debuts May 10 with Multiple Episodes.” 15 March 2024.
“The Times.” “Will Disney Renew Doctor Who Deal After ‘Underwhelming’ Ratings?” 2024.
